Oscar Prediction Thread

I would like to say that I couldn't care less about the Oscars if I tried, but the fact is that I usually wind up watching the broadcast (or at least checking in every now and then while watching a DVD in between) no matter what. It's fair to say Oscar and I don't get along much - I wouldn't wish a festival of Oscar winning films on my worst enemy. However, there is always the curiousity factor, not to mention the amusement derived when the Academy embarrasses itself, say, by picking an overblown afterschool special with the moral sophistication of an Apprentice episode as its Best Picture of the year.

I also like to predict the winners. I have no idea why. I'm not very good at it, but I'm working on a system.

I really only have a system for Best Picture, and it goes as follows. The Academy voters are old and scared. They will almost always favor the safest and the loudest movie. If there is an acceptable blockbuster epic, they will go with that (Lord of the Rings.) In the absence of such a candidate, they will inevitably gravitate to the most "important" movie they can find, the one that "really makes them think." But not too much. By this standard, I am predicting the Best Picture winner will be... "Babel," this year's "Crash" though not quite as stupid. It's loud, it's overwrought, and it shrieks its own monumental significance in every frame. The voters will eat this one up.

I also have a backup system for picking Best Picture, and it's a simple one. Whichever of the candidates I think is the most ridiculous movie will win. By this standard, "Babel" once again gets the nod.

Dark Horse: If it turns out to be a night of nonstop Marty love, then The Departed (silly but amusingly silly) can take the award.

Other categories.

Best Director: Marty (yeah, I'll say it, he's a lock)

Screenplay (Original): Babel (because it's the loudest and silliest and most over-determined - "it really makes you think")

Screenplay (Adapted): The Departed

Best Actor: Forest Whitaker (it's the loudest performance, plus everyone knows and likes Whitaker)

Best Actress: Helen Mirren (she is supposedly the runaway favorite. I am suspicious only because I think she is also the best candidate, so I'm not sure the Academy will go there.)

Best Supporting Actor: Mark Wahlberg (also on the loud factor, though I think his one-note performance is pretty hilarious, and worthy of some respect)

Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson (again, loudest)
DARK HORSE: Cate Blanchett

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM: Happy Feet (I have no idea, just a guess. It made lots of money.)

ART DIRECTION: Dreamgirls

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Pan's Labyrinth (another wild guess)

FILM EDITING: Babel ('cause lots of things happen, and they cut back and forth a lot)

DOCUMENTARY: An Inconvenient Truth (Iraq in Fragments is much better, of course, but Truth is respectable)

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: Pan's Labyrinth (should be a runaway)

VISUAL EFFECTS: Wow, has there ever been a year when all the nominees in this category were so weak? I guess it goes to "Pirates of the Caribbean"

The rest... I won't even pretend to have a guess.

If "Babel" wins, 2005-06 will have to go down as the two worst back-to-back years in Academy history, but I for one hope it happens.

Sorry, gotta disagree with a couple of choices.

Though I'm reluctant to admit, The Departed will almost surely win Best Picture. At this point, I really can't see anything in its way.

Supporting actor, though I believe it'll be Murphy, can't possibly be Wahlberg. Though I loved his character, he's just filler in that category.

Feature film will most assuredly be Cars, if for no other reason than comprehension (Happy Feet was admittedly preachy).

Art Direction simply has to be Pan's Labyrinth, I haven't even seen it and it's more engaging than anything else.

Editing I'm afraid I must disagree with too. United 93 is among some of the tautest, most efficient editing I've seen in a major motion picture. Only the Departed could possibly pull an upset.

You're right, pretty hellish year for visual effects, can't disagree with Pirates, making Johnny Depp look human has got to bring some gold home.

You left out sound awards, which will be Pirates in sound editing, Dreamgirls in sound mixing, and Etheridge for best song.

Strangely, I think this is one of the most predictable years for the Oscars, but we seem to part ways on the big prize. Either way, take it with a grain of salt, or bet money like I am :>}


[Post edited by genfizzy4 on Feb 23, 2007]

You might be right about art direction, but I figured that would be the place that Dreamgirls got the pity votes for not getting a Best Picture nod.

I agree that United 93 _should_ win in the best editing category, but I can't see the Academy voters going that way. It's too scary. I'd also like to see Children of Men win for editing, but I don't think that will happen either.

I just read a prediction column on another site, and they considered Dreamgirls a shoe-in for art direction, simply because of the lack of a BP nomination. So you might actually have that one. Strangely, they also mention Babel as best editing. Maybe I'm just a bit of a whiner because 93 didn't get a BP nomination.

I would call it this years Brokeback Mountain, a film that didn't get enough votes because too few people saw it. I can at least rest assured that whatever wins this year will be better than Crash (am I the only one that thought that movie was VERY sloppy and poorly written).

Of course, we have to distinguish between those films we think will win Oscars and those we wish would win. I didn't mind last year's "Crash" (although I didn't think it was the best film of the year by any means), but I absolutely hated "Babel." In any case, I don't think "Babel" will win much or anything.

I loved Helen Mirren in "The Queen," and I think she'll probably win Best Actress. But I preferred the other English lady, Judi Dench, in "Notes on a Scandal." I thought it was a more original, more nuanced, more imaginative performance.

And where is Daniel Craig in the Academy's minds? So a Bond film is not high art, and the Academy only seems to favor things that are either "epic" or "sensitive." Bah. Craig's performance in "Casino Royale" was better than anything anyone did in movies all year. The proof was his winning over nonbelievers and naysayers who didn't expect him to do at all well in the part.

Etc.

John

**Craig's performance in "Casino Royale" was better than anything anyone did in movies all year.**


You gotta watch more movies, John. :)

But I agree, he was good.

I agree Craig was great John, but I haven't seen anything this year featuring as a good a performance as Whitaker's in The Last King of Scotland. Not my favorite film, but he WAS Idi Amin. I haven't seen O'Toole in Venus yet, so I can't say there. Oh, and I liked Edward Norton in The Painted Veil, despite that he didn't get any recognition.

My guess for Best Picture is The Departed, though I think this is a year in which any of them could conceivably win. And Marty is getting Director.

Oh, and I also preferred Judi Dench.

[Post edited by Vincent on Feb 25, 2007]

It would be a shame if Emmanuel Lubezki wasn't awarded Best Cinematography for his incredible work in "Children of Men" particularly since he failed to win for "The New World" last year with astonishing contributions that maintained Malick's high standards for photography.

However, if the Academy blindly diregards Lubezki's superb photography, I'd like to see Vilmos Zsigmond win with his work in "The Black Dahlia" after floating around in mediocrity, it was refreshing to hear Zsigmond was working with a reputable director, regardless of the inane script. Unfortunately, for the sake of the two aforementioned cinematographers, in the event that "Pan's Labyrinth" isn't awarded Best Foreign Film, then I could see the Academy awarding del Toro's film here.

It will be interesting to see the montage devoted to Ennio Morricone and whether he appears to accept the award (given his distaste for the Academy) how he never won a Oscar is entirely incomprehensible.

-Kurtis

Vincent, Chris,

Yeah, I have nothing against any of the contenders this year, and Whitaker was certainly good. But it's a shame that in many people's eyes by picking only one winner or only five finalists, the Academy seems to diminish the work of other good filmmakers. I mention Craig because he's a good example of the many actors and filmmakers whose work goes unrewarded by the Academy because the movie they're in isn't deemed worthy enough of honor. For example, how many comedies have ever won Best Picture? ("It Happened One Night," "You Can't Take It With You," "Forrest Gump," "Shakespeare in Love" are among the few, and a lot of people resented them taking the spotlight from more "weighty" productions.) Plus, as much as I admire actors portraying real-life people (Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Alfred Kinsey, Elizabeth II, Idi Amin, etc.), it seems to me that creating a fictional character from scratch takes as much or more talent.

John

John,

I very much agree with your comments. The Academy's focus has notably shifted to to that of non-fictional characterizations (biopics, etc.), which is alienating other, perhaps equally valuable, performances drawn from fiction this, of course, accompanies the Academy's ignorance of particular genres: namely westerns, comedies, and action works. Frankly, I'm becoming less and less interested in the biopic, which is a shame when a film like "I'm Not There" is about to be released this year, presumably at Cannes.

On another note, having recently screened "The Searchers" -- a film that centralized the concept of racism and its integral place in Americana -- I've become interested in what constituted recognition in the late 1940s and 1950s because the work of directors Howard Hawks and John Ford gradually grew undeservedly silent in the American press. Films such as "Red River," "The Big Sky," "The Sun Shines Bright," and "The Searchers" were, if acknowledged at all, restricted to technical awards. Of course, all the films noted evoke traditional western themes, albeit with more complex themes. Most obviously, racism has become a popular topic with voters in the past couple of years. As Peter Bogdanovich wisely noted in the commentary on "The Searchers," time is greatest of all critics.

- Kurtis

[Post edited by kbeard on Feb 25, 2007]

Heh I just realized I can't use semi-colons on this board.

- Kurtis

John, you forgot to put "Crash" on your list of comedies that have won Best Picture. Unintentional comedy still counts, right?

I don't really agree that creating a fictional character makes a performance any more difficult. In fact, my pick for Best Supporting Actor this year would be Ben Sliney as Ben Sliney in "United 93." I thought he was phenomenal. I actually went home after watching the movie to look up "that guy" because he delivered one of the best performances I had seen in years.

However, I do agree that biopics encourage actors (for obvious and valid reasons) to substitue mimesis for actual performance. EVeryone ooh'd and ah'd over how Jamie Foox was "just like" Ray Charles or how Charlize Theron simply "became" Aileen Wournhous, but I've never understood why that impresses people so much, but I think it falls under the category of "the Academy likes it big and loud."

I actually liked Joaquin Phoenix's take on Johnny Cash in large part because he didn't appear to be trying to imitate the Man in Black, but to offer his own take on the role. Likewise, I thought Helen Mirren was great as QE2 because she approached it as much more than simply an exercise in imitation.

Of course, we all know the best biopic performance of all-time is John Wayne as Genghis Khan...

Also, I agree with Kurtis that Emmanuel Lubezki deserves to win. Children of Men isn't necessarily his best work, but it's still very good and he's one of the best younger cinematographers in the biz right now.

"bloody sunday", "the bourne supremacy", and "united 93" represent a stunning career trajectory. paul greengrass is the future of cinema.

scorsese has already run out of things to say. he should get a lifetime de-merit award for "gangs of new york", "the aviator", and "the departed".

So have you officially given up on Spielberg now, Eddie?

it's funny that you ask that question now, chris. since graduating from chapman, i've lowered my assessment of spielberg. warren is right in championing spielberg's tremendous technical proficiency and artistry, but when a guy keeps making movies about little boys/young men trying to find their parents or a moral compass, he's telling you that he's been on autopilot since day one.

i've also been repudiating my other movie father figure, ang lee. because of "crouching tiger", every big-name or commercial chinese director has made a bloated martial-arts wank-fest to chase box-office dollars and oscar glory. this isn't directly ang lee's fault, but lee's success is to be blamed for why the world hasn't taken more notice of movies like...well, "the world".

[Post edited by posters5 on Feb 26, 2007]

John, in late response, I agree to some degree with comedies deserving more nominations. Yet, Shakespeare in Love...I can't illustrate how much of a disgrace I feel that was in winning Best Picture. On thate note, I don't really respect the Academy...year after year, making mostly the wrong choices. This year, no win in best foreign film for Pan's Labyrinth really got me, especially after it won all the others...so they were saying it was the best in all these categories, above the the other's, but then it doesn't win overall best. Stupid, just stupid.

I think Marty won on a sympathy vote. The man has clearly had better pictures than "The Departed", and I'm not saying "The Departed" is bad, I'm just saying the guy has had better films.

And no nominations for "Jackass II"? The awards sucked this year!